Morons and Idio(ms)ts

~ Taken from Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Galatians. Footnotes excluded. ~

GALATIANS 3:1-5
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing – if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

The word translated "foolish" here is not moros (as in "moron"), but anoetos. Christian writers are in the habit of denying that Scripture would call some people "foolish" in the sense of "stupid," or mentally deficient and defective. It is customary to understand the word in a moral sense, whatever that means. And in denying that both words mean stupid, commentators usually make themselves appear quite foolish.

On Galatians 3:1, John MacArthur writes, "This refers not to lack of intelligence, but to lack of obedience." But when Paul applies the same word to the Galatians in 3:3, MacArthur says that the apostle is "incredulous at how easily the Galatians had been duped." Which is it? Is Paul somehow referring to "lack of obedience" by the word, or "easily…duped"? Prejudice forces MacArthur to choose the former (3:1), exegesis compels him to select the latter (3:3).

Another commentator writes, "The Greek word does not mean that they were mentally deficient; rather anoetos suggests that the behavior of people who are intelligent yet are not using that intelligence to perceive the truth." First, even if the word literally means that one is not using his intelligence, it does not necessarily suggest that this person is intelligent. Then, the commentator proceeds to say that the Galatians are "illogical…inconsistent, contradictory, nonsensical." What is the difference between such people and stupid people? And he adds, "He was questioning, not their intelligence, but their lack of discernment." But again, what is the difference?

Ryken is more honest with the passage. He writes, "Paul was upset…here he practically splutters with indignation. And rightly so…. As far as Paul was able to tell, the Galatians were guilty of sheer spiritual stupidity. J. B. Phillips paraphrases him to say: 'O you dear idiots of Galatia…surely you can't be so idiotic!'" The only correct way to deal with the text is to acknowledge that this is in part a harsh and angry letter, and that when the apostle calls his readers stupid, he means stupid.

The idea that there is a moral stupidity (whatever that means) that is sharply distinguishable from an intellectual stupidity is inexplicable. Although man's mental deficiency has a spiritual origin or basis – thus the term "the noetic effects of sin" – it cannot be reduced to a purely moral defect to the exclusion of an actual retardation of the intellect. A good tree bears good fruit because it is a good tree, and a bad tree bears bad fruit because it is a bad tree. So just as people affirm and perform wicked things because they are wicked, they affirm and perform stupid things because they are stupid. This is imperative to safeguarding the biblical doctrine of sin, and thus also the biblical doctrine of salvation, or the complete gospel message. Christ is both our spiritual/moral and intellectual savior.

Among several other expressions that he uses, Paul calls the unbelievers "morons" (Gr. moros), and those who follow heresies "idiots" (Gr. anoetos, or mindless, foolish), as he does here. Instead of following the Bible's example in using such invectives under similar contexts, many Christians have adopted a foreign standard of social interaction. They have been deceived into thinking that biblical teaching somehow commends detached academic language and a formal professionalism in our expressions, so that perhaps without knowing what they are doing, they even join the world in condemning the apostle's approach, or at least condemn him indirectly by persecuting those who follow his example.

There is also a double standard in how they react to someone who models the inspired characters in Scripture. Church figures who had achieved hero status are often exempt from their criticisms, although they have done the same thing. If Calvin says it, it is orthodoxy; if I say the same thing, it is heresy. If Luther employs invectives, it is vigilance; if I employ invectives, it is arrogance. Of course, these people are respecter of persons, and they are hypocrites. Some would go as far as to fault Calvin, Luther, and the like for their practice, although they would still find some excuse for them, such as the customs of their day. However, they would still have to deal with all the harsh expressions in Scripture against unbelief and heresy.

Morally speaking, to uncritically follow current non-Christian practice is to betray Scripture's teachings and examples. It is sinful to suggest that the use of invectives is wrong when defending biblical doctrine and practice, because such a suggestion would condemn Scripture itself. Practically speaking, to adopt a non-Christian standard is to unnecessarily limit our rhetorical options in performing polemics, and to exclude strategies that often render our expositions and arguments more explicit, precise, forceful, and effective. In any case, although it is not always appropriate to employ invectives in polemics, we have no obligation to follow the non-Christian standard, and we must not yield when unthinking and hypocritical Christians criticize the practice.

Some criticisms are especially unintelligent. I recently received a rebuff from a Christian for applying the word "moron" to a non-Christian, as the Bible does. In it he says "a good rule to remember" is that "it takes one to know one." But this principle is problematic for several reasons.

First, by "it takes one to know one," this Christian intends to suggest that if I call someone a moron, then I must be one myself to be able to recognize him as one. Thus he claims that by this principle he recognizes me as a moron, but then by the same principle, "it takes one to know one" (and he knows me as one), he must be a moron himself. So all I hear from his objection is that he is calling himself a moron, and I am mystified as to how this is supposed to discourage me from applying the word to a non-Christian as the Bible does.

Second, after insisting that he is himself a moron, by this principle he is also calling the faithful and significant Christians of previous centuries all the derogatory names that they have applied toward those who disbelieved and disobeyed sound doctrine. This is because name-calling modeled after the biblical examples had always been the custom of the Church Fathers and the Reformers. From Augustine to Calvin, and even Matthew Henry and Charles Spurgeon, harsh but accurate invectives had always been applied to the opponents of the gospel. But by the principle, "it takes one to know one," this Christian condemns this whole host of God's servants with all the labels that they have applied toward unbelief and rebellion, as if these servants of God were in fact the enemies of Christ.

Third, even if we yield to the Christian's second implication, that all these significant figures in church history were just as much the children of hell as those that they denounced, surely no Christian should say the same about the inspired characters of Scripture. Yet the prophets and the apostles almost unceasingly called some in their audience sinners, fools, idolaters, adulterers, liars, whores, dogs, and many other things. By the principle "it takes one to know one," this Christian asserts that the prophets and the apostles were also all of these things. By this point, if we take this Christian seriously – if he takes this principle seriously – we must conclude that it is impossible for him to affirm the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.

As if that is not enough, the fourth implication is still more severe. Our Lord Jesus himself called many people harsh and derogatory names, using a wide range of invectives to denounce them. He speaks of sinners, adulterers, idolaters, liars, and demons. He rebuked his disciples for their lack of faith and understanding. He called the Pharisees vipers, murderers, hypocrites, and even the children of hell. By the principle "it takes one to know one," our Christian is by implication calling the Lord himself all these things – that he is a demon, a murderer, a hypocrite, even a child of hell.

In connection with the above, we could make a fifth point out of the fact that the principle also implies that, when God the Father calls someone a sinner, this makes God himself a sinner, since "it takes one to know one." Moreover, a sixth point can be developed out of a reverse application of the principle. That is, when I call the Father "God," this means that I am God myself, for "it takes one to know one." Now if the principle is qualified to eliminate all these undesirable, and probably unintended, implications, then it is pretty much useless and a waste of my time. This Christian might as well just call me a moron without any justification and without making any connection to the fact that I applied the term to a non-Christian. But of course, "it takes one to know one."

If I base my use of invectives on biblical precepts and examples, as I repeatedly assert and demonstrate, then this Christian must either refute any alleged scriptural support and connection between my practice and what we find in Scripture, or he is applying his principle to me fully aware of the connection that I claim with Scripture. Thus he is without excuse. By implication, his rebuke against me is the equivalent of a renunciation of Scripture and of Christ.

Thus if we take his point seriously – if he takes his point seriously – by his rebuke against me he must be considered for immediate excommunication from the church. By no means do I now assert that this person is indeed an unbeliever. The point is that my practice has an irrefutable biblical and historical foundation, and to attack it merely shows up the objector as one who stands squarely against Scripture. Moreover, his use of the cliché and irrational principle "it takes one to know one" reflects a common practice among Christians of using non-Christian standards to regulate all aspects of their theology and practice, even to the point of condemning those who follow Scripture rather than the world.

Rather than a champion of biblical love and kindness, if his use of the principle by which he rebukes me is taken to its devastating logical conclusion, then we must insist that he is not a Christian at all, but an unbeliever and a blasphemer. Unless he has never read much of the Bible or many of the prominent Christian works throughout history, our most charitable conclusion is that he employs a double standard against me, and proves himself to be a self-righteous hypocrite. And what we find today among Christians is a cliché system of theology and ethics that is not very different from what the non-Christians believe. This is, inevitably, the pathetic condition of those who wield an unbiblical standard to judge a biblical doctrine, practice, or ministry.

In the same rebuke, he also admonishes me with the statement, "It is easy to sling it but its not nice to receive it." But is he prepared to say this to the likes of Augustine, Athanasius, Luther, Calvin, and so on? Does he dare to say the same to Jeremiah, to Paul, and even to the Lord Jesus? No, like a hypocrite, he says it only to me because I am one who has not achieved hero status in his mind, and therefore I am not exempt from his non-Christian standard.

Now, if I am following a biblical practice, applying the same words that Scripture uses to the same kind of people that it applies these words, why do I have to "receive" the same? Why is there even a question as to whether it is easy to "sling it" or "receive it"? What does that have to do with anything? How is it relevant? In this context, the admonition makes no sense. It is just another cliché from one who has been indoctrinated by the world instead of by biblical teachings and examples, and who now takes upon himself to rebuke me when I rebel against the anti-biblical standard, seemingly in the hope that I will get back in line with the accepted non-Christian practice and attitude. There is no chance that I will comply.

Long ago I had to make a decision. I could cater to the non-Christian standard to make my speech and writing sound academic and professional to people. Or, I could forsake worldly respectability and follow the examples of the prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Jesus. The former would make me a pitiful drone, a polite hypocrite who offends fewer people but by implication blasphemes even the Lord himself. The latter would make me a faithful minister of Christ, scorned by professing believers and hated by the unbelievers – that is, if I can even tell them apart – but the reward is divine light and thunder in my proclamation of the word of God, and the Father's approval that comes from obedience through the Lord Jesus Christ. The options were clear. The consequences were obvious. The decision was easy. "If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ."